1
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION
2
3
4
5
COMMISSION MEETING
6
7
8
9
DATE: January 26, 1998
10
TIME: Commenced at 1:00 p.m.
11 Concluded at 6:10 p.m.
12 PLACE: The Senate Chamber
The Capitol
13 Tallahassee, Florida
14 REPORTED BY: KRISTEN L. BENTLEY
JULIE L. DOHERTY, RPR
15 MONA L. WHIDDON
Court Reporters
16 Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
17 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 W. DEXTER DOUGLASS, CHAIRMAN
3 CARLOS ALFONSO
CLARENCE E. ANTHONY
4 ANTONIO L. ARGIZ (ABSENT)
JUDGE THOMAS H. BARKDULL, JR.
5 MARTHA WALTERS BARNETT
PAT BARTON
6 ROBERT M. BROCHIN
THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH
7 KEN CONNOR
CHRIS CORR (EXCUSED)
8 SENATOR ANDER CRENSHAW (ABSENT)
VALERIE EVANS
9 MARILYN EVANS-JONES
BARBARA WILLIAMS FORD-COATES
10 ELLEN CATSMAN FREIDIN
PAUL HAWKES
11 WILLIAM CLAY HENDERSON
THE HONORABLE TONI JENNINGS
12 THE HONORABLE GERALD KOGAN (EXCUSED)
DICK LANGLEY (ABSENT)
13 JOHN F. LOWNDES
STANLEY MARSHALL
14 JACINTA MATHIS
JON LESTER MILLS
15 FRANK MORSANI (ABSENT)
ROBERT LOWRY NABORS
16 CARLOS PLANAS (EXCUSED)
JUDITH BYRNE RILEY
17 KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE
SENATOR JIM SCOTT
18 H. T. SMITH
ALAN C. SUNDBERG (EXCUSED)
19 JAMES HAROLD THOMPSON
PAUL WEST
20 JUDGE GERALD T. WETHERINGTON
STEPHEN NEAL ZACK
21
IRA H. LEESFIELD (ABSENT)
22 LYRA BLIZZARD LOGAN
23
24
25
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 (Roll taken and recorded electronically.)
3 SECRETARY BLANTON: All commissioners indicate your
4 presence, all unauthorized visitors please leave the
5 chamber. All commissioners indicate your presence.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I wonder if you would cast word
7 around that we need everybody to get in the chamber. We
8 don't have enough yet so we don't have to clear the
9 chamber yet. I wonder if everybody that hasn't signed in
10 that's on the floor, please sign in.
11 SECRETARY BLANTON: Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. If everybody would
13 take their seats, please. And all unauthorized persons,
14 please leave the chamber. And have a seat and we will
15 start the session.
16 Commissioner Nabors, would you-all have a seat,
17 please, you and Commissioner Brochin. Will the
18 Commissioners and guests please rise for the opening
19 prayer given today by the Reverend Jerry Knight, pastor of
20 Lakewood Baptist Church in Tallahassee. Reverend Knight.
21 REVEREND KNIGHT: Let us pray together. Our Father,
22 we are grateful to thee for thy goodness to us and for
23 this good day you have shared with us. We thank you,
24 Lord, for your death, your burial, your resurrection.
25 Thank you for the privilege to be here today with these
4
1 friends who represent our community, our governments.
2 We are admonished in your word to pray for those who
3 are over us in governmental authority. And, Father, we do
4 on a regular basis. We pray your blessings upon the
5 session today, bless each one represented, give wisdom,
6 give direction. We thank thee again for what thou dost
7 mean to us. In Jesus' name, Amen.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Would Allison Freidin and
9 Jonathan Freidin please come lead us in the pledge of
10 allegiance to the flag.
11 (Pledge of allegiance.)
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Those are the children of
13 Commissioner Freidin and they are here from Miami and we
14 are delighted to have them. Also this morning, I would
15 like for the following pages that are serving us today
16 from Belle Vue Middle School to come up front and stand as
17 I call your name and we will introduce you.
18 Marisha Ash, Marisha is coming over here, Kailah
19 Berigan, Farrah Cannon, Rachel Glenn, Lauren Hayman, Tara
20 Merck, and a young man who informed me that he was going
21 to be Governor some day, or sent me word, and he seems to
22 be on the right track, he is the only male representative
23 in this group, Stanford Thomas. Stanford, future
24 Governor.
25 (Applause.)
5
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Stanford, since you want to be
2 Governor, you come up here with me a minute. I want
3 everybody to get a good look at you. Tell everybody
4 hello.
5 MASTER THOMAS: Hello.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Anything else you want to say,
7 Governor?
8 MASTER THOMAS: I'm glad to be here.
9 (Applause.)
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: For the benefit of the members,
11 you have a button on your desk there that says page. And
12 any time you need a Coke or anything, push the button and
13 one of these fine young people will come take care of your
14 needs. They are going to get a photograph, then we will
15 proceed.
16 All right. I recognize Commissioner Barkdull,
17 Chairman of Rules. Commissioner Barkdull.
18 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
19 Members of the Commission. You have on your desk a
20 proposed calendar which tracks this book which was sent to
21 you in the mail. You will also -- or Fed Ex'd to you.
22 You will also find the same book on your desk, they are no
23 different, it is the same volume. I ask you to hang on to
24 these books because I don't anticipate that we will finish
25 these proposals today and they will recur probably
6
1 sometime either tomorrow or Wednesday. And you will need
2 the packet to refer back to.
3 The meeting schedule is on the front page of the
4 calendar for the week. I call your attention to the fact
5 that there are committee meetings scheduled for tomorrow
6 afternoon, Finance and Tax, and the Select Committee on
7 Initiatives, which are 5:00 or when we adjourn tomorrow.
8 The calendar that you received a month or so ago that
9 indicated the schedule for February and March of the
10 commission has been altered somewhat and you will
11 receive -- new calendars will be placed on your desk for
12 February and March and the remainder of the spring,
13 either -- probably tomorrow.
14 The public hearings which are referred to, they were
15 the major change. There was a move of one day in the
16 first one. The material that was distributed to your
17 offices last week did not have the telephone numbers on
18 them, they will be distributed to you before the session
19 ends, probably tomorrow.
20 I call your attention again that if you have any
21 proposals that you are contemplating withdrawing, you make
22 a note to yourself about it and do it at the conclusion of
23 today. Several members have already talked to me about
24 other proposals that they will move to withdraw at the
25 conclusion of the calendar.
7
1 We are scheduled to go until 6:00 tonight. At the
2 moment I am not prepared to announce that there will be a
3 Rules Committee. There will be a further announcement on
4 that later on in the session. But at the present time I
5 have no further announcements and the special order is
6 available and on your desk.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Very well. Then we will proceed
8 to the special order. First, matters on reconsideration.
9 Proposal 91 by Commissioner Hawkes is on reconsideration.
10 It failed and there was a motion to reconsider by
11 Commissioner Barnett, which was adopted. And it was then
12 reconsidered and committed to style and drafting and now
13 there is a pending motion to reconsider by Commissioner
14 Mills. Commissioner Mills.
15 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think
16 Mr. Hawkes is on the floor, so perhaps we shouldn't bring
17 up the reconsideration until he gets here.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well that's an option. On the
19 other hand, if you have got the votes, you might want to
20 go forward.
21 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Well we like to be fair.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think he is here in town, I saw
23 him this morning. Here he is. No, that's Commissioner
24 Alfonso. Tell him to get off the telephone back there --
25 here he comes. He is here, go ahead.
8
1 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Well, Mr. Chairman, there were
2 some questions raised about the actual impact of
3 Commissioner Hawkes' proposal and my motion to reconsider
4 was to allow us to raise those issues and allow
5 Commissioner Hawkes to further clarify that. And at this
6 point I think we probably just want Commissioner Hawkes to
7 do that.
8 The reason I moved to reconsider was that my
9 understanding of the purpose was to provide tax breaks for
10 the utilization of pollution control devices. The
11 technical issues that were raised were, did the wording
12 actually, because of the way it described certain devices,
13 which are used by utilities, did it actually end up
14 raising taxes by including devices which had not otherwise
15 been included. And Commissioner Thompson has a set of
16 questions on that.
17 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman --
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield?
19 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I do.
20 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: -- I have a question for
21 Mr. Mills, and Mr. Hawkes is now back in the chamber.
22 Would you have any objection, if it is okay with
23 Commissioner Hawkes, to let's temporarily pass
24 consideration of this, Mr. Chairman, and we will get back
25 to it at a time when maybe we three can agree to do that?
9
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Without objection, we will
2 temporarily pass it until later in this meeting.
3 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Well, we might want to put it
4 off indefinitely, until some of us bring it up. Thank
5 you.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. I'd like to resolve
7 this. It is not one of the major issues we are
8 considering, but we don't want to tie ourselves down with
9 these type issues. Okay?
10 All right. On Proposal 107 by Commissioner Connor,
11 it was disapproved by the committee on the Declaration of
12 Rights and it failed. And a pending motion to consider by
13 Commissioner Argiz, who is not here. Would you read that
14 so we will know what we are talking about?
15 READING CLERK: Proposal 107, a proposal to revise
16 Article I, Florida Constitution; providing that the State
17 Constitution does not restrict the right of parents to
18 consent to medical treatment for their minor children.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Connor,
20 you rise to speak. This was your proposal, which lost,
21 and was moved for reconsideration by Commissioner Argiz.
22 We are now on reconsideration.
23 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: As you can tell, Mr. Chairman,
24 Commissioner Argiz is not here and I would simply request
25 that we temporarily pass consideration of this matter at
10
1 this time.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Without objection, it is passed,
3 temporarily passed I should say. Commissioner Scott.
4 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, so that we are in
5 the right posture on this Proposal 91 by Commissioner
6 Hawkes, what we really should do is go ahead and adopt the
7 motion to reconsider so that it is reconsidered and then
8 it can be temporarily passed and be back before us.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I was going to suggest that, but
10 that's why I said we had better get back to it today. But
11 with that in mind, all in favor of the motion to
12 reconsider, say aye; opposed?
13 (Verbal vote taken.)
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It will be on reconsideration and
15 that will give you time to work on this and it will take
16 care of it for the moment. We will defer further
17 consideration of it at this time.
18 And now we will move to the proposed special order
19 for this week and the first item, the first one on the
20 special order is Proposal 134 by Commissioner Marshall,
21 which has not been acted on, but has been withdrawn by the
22 Committee on Legislative. Would you read it, please?
23 READING CLERK: Proposal 134, a proposal to revise
24 Article III, Section 3, Florida Constitution; providing
25 for length of regular legislative sessions.
11
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Marshall, you are
2 recognized to present this proposal.
3 COMMISSIONER MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, I thought this
4 had been withdrawn, it apparently has not been, I wish to
5 do that now.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Without objection, Proposal
7 No. 134 by Commissioner Marshall is withdrawn.
8 Proposal No. 90 is the next proposal by Commissioner
9 Hawkes, referred to Committee on Legislative and was
10 withdrawn without recommendation or action. Would you
11 read it, please?
12 READING CLERK: Proposal 90, a proposal to revise
13 Article III, Section 4, Florida Constitution; providing
14 members of the Legislature with immunity with respect to
15 any speech or debate in either house of the Legislature.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Hawkes, you are
17 recognized.
18 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 Members, this proposal was suggested to me by one of the
20 general counsels who felt that our Constitution was
21 lacking because we do not have this provision in it. It
22 is copied from the U.S. Constitution, and basically the
23 Florida Supreme Court has allowed this to take place
24 anyway, but we really didn't have any constitutional
25 footing. So I view this as kind of a technical amendment
12
1 that could be included, if we do one, in the technical
2 provisions' part of our proposals.
3 And unless there are some questions, I would ask for
4 your favorable consideration. Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mills. Do you yield
6 to Commissioner Mills? He yields.
7 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Hawkes, I am trying to
8 recall the case. It seems to me that the Supreme Court
9 said there was not a speech and debate clause, but did
10 accord some privilege; is that correct?
11 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Yes, that's my understanding is
12 that, and they indicated that there was this lacking. And
13 this is just to provide that so when a member is on the
14 floor, he would have the same protections as what most of
15 us assume he would have anyway. And that they have been
16 granted by the court in specific cases.
17 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Does the statement "privilege
18 from arrest" relate to anything other than conduct on the
19 floor?
20 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: No, it would not.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott.
22 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, at the Legislative
23 Committee I think we did not get a quorum when this came
24 up, is the chairman's recollection. But in any event,
25 there was some serious question raised about whether we
13
1 want to have on the ballot something that says that
2 legislators are privileged from arrest.
3 I mean, I think -- at least I did, and I think the
4 ones present agreed with the idea of the speech and
5 debate, but they were concerned about the way -- this is
6 out of the Federal Constitution, which we think this needs
7 a little bit of work here before we would vote to go
8 forward with something that says legislators are
9 privileged from arrest.
10 What we really want to address is the Girardeau case,
11 the former senator who was called and asked, and was
12 questioned about his proposal and how whatever happened on
13 the floor of the Senate. So I think we did not -- this
14 matter just came out of committee because that was the
15 last meeting.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott, I think your
17 comments should refer everybody to the summary that's in
18 your red packet, to No. 90. The case that's referred to
19 was not a Florida Supreme Court case, it was a First
20 District Court of Appeal, it was Girardeau versus State.
21 The case you are referring to, is it. And it also points
22 out that there is federal case law by the U.S. Supreme
23 Court and also that's a common law doctrine that had never
24 been fully defined, as it is pointed out.
25 The one other comment that I think Commissioner
14
1 Hawkes would have mentioned to you, that a similar
2 proposal was placed on the ballot in 1984 and it was
3 defeated by the electors 2,216,910 to 1,110,743. So if
4 there is some idea that this isn't controversial, at least
5 it was in 1984.
6 I only ask that you read this because I'm assuming
7 that everybody is reading the summaries that are provided
8 to you that are before you. Now Commissioner Hawkes,
9 after we have emasculated your proposal, would you like to
10 say something else?
11 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Well, Mr. Chairman, it was not
12 intended as any greater protection than they cannot be
13 arrested for what they say on the floor. And Commissioner
14 Connor made a suggestion that if it was set off by commas,
15 put a comma after the word "arrest" and after the word
16 "place," and style and drafting can certainly do that, it
17 is just to provide the debate protection. It was viewed
18 as relatively uncontroversial in my book, but if the
19 commission doesn't want to do it, I understand that too,
20 Mr. Chairman.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'm going to ask Commissioner
22 Thompson, weren't in the Legislature in 1984?
23 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: (Nods affirmatively.)
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: And Commissioner Mills and also
25 Commissioner Scott. Do you-all remember this, it came
15
1 from the Legislature, this proposal?
2 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I remember the Girardeau
3 case. I don't remember.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mills? Do you
5 remember this proposal that's mentioned here --
6 COMMISSIONER MILLS: (Indicates negatively.)
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: -- that was defeated by 2 million
8 to 1 million? It was similar because I'd like to know if
9 anybody has looked at the exact proposal. All right.
10 Well that's all right. If I'm the only one that has a
11 question, I don't guess it matters. All right. Any
12 further debate? Commissioner Wetherington.
13 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Well assuming that the
14 people, as you correctly stated, voted on it in 1984,
15 common law recognizes a privilege, which the Supreme Court
16 has affirmed, what's the necessity?
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Your question is addressed to the
18 sponsor, Commissioner Hawkes?
19 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes, it is.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Hawkes, do you want
21 to respond to that?
22 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: I just think it is better if we
23 have the actual footing in place and not ask the court to
24 reach out and do things that they think ought to be there
25 and maybe people intended to be there but aren't really
16
1 there. And it just seemed to make sense that way.
2 I would submit that if it was controversial in '84,
3 if that's when it came up, it was perhaps because people
4 didn't understand it. And if they don't understand it,
5 experience tells us they tend to vote against it.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Okay. Commissioner Barkdull.
7 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, members of the
8 commission, I certainly think that members of the
9 Legislature ought to have all the protections in debate
10 and discussions because they ought to have no -- nothing
11 should be a chilling effect on them expressing their
12 opinion.
13 But as pointed out by Commissioner Wetherington, I
14 think the protection is there now. And I have got to say,
15 as I have looked at what we have already passed and what
16 we are about to consider in the days to come, I am
17 concerned about us getting a Christmas tree out there of
18 proposals. And because I have not seen an overwhelming
19 need for this, I am reluctant to vote for it at this time
20 and I will vote against it.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any further debate? Okay, open
22 the machine and we will vote.
23 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Lock the machine and announce the
25 vote.
17
1 READING CLERK: Four yeas and 23 nays, Mr. Chairman.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The proposal fails. We will go
3 to the next proposal, 105, by Commissioner Planas.
4 Commissioner Planas called me or called the office this
5 morning and he has gone to the doctor. He has been having
6 some medical problems, as most of you may know. He is
7 going to try to get here today sometime, but he is not
8 sure. Commissioner Scott.
9 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I would move that
10 we temporarily pass this matter until he is, if he is
11 going to be here sometime this week because there are some
12 questions that we discussed in committee and we are going
13 to have to have him here to agree to whatever version the
14 members might ask questions about who is included and who
15 isn't.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Without objection, it will be
17 temporarily passed pending the presence of Commissioner
18 Planas at a reasonable time, which would be like this
19 week. This proposal relates to term limits for State
20 Senators and Representatives. And as Commissioner Scott
21 points out, the committee did not have an opportunity to
22 recommend on this because of the lack of quorum. Without
23 objection it is temporarily passed.
24 Our next proposal is 178 [sic] by Commissioner
25 Thompson. And it was also not acted on by the committee
18
1 for lack of a quorum and it is referred to the calendar.
2 Would you read the Proposal No. 179, please.
3 READING CLERK: Proposal 179, a proposal to revise
4 Article III, Sections 8 and 19, Florida Constitution;
5 providing guidelines for legislative consideration of veto
6 messages; revising calculation of the 72-hour public
7 review period for general appropriation bills.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Connor, you are
9 recognized. I changed your name, Commissioner Thompson, I
10 was reading his name here.
11 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes, sir. The first thing
12 this proposal does is clarify for the Legislature, and
13 they have had some recent problems with this, as to when a
14 veto message has to be taken up. Now to kind of refresh
15 your memory on this, a bill is finally passed by both
16 houses, it goes to the Governor. Many times -- most of
17 the time, the Legislature is out of the session by the
18 time the Governor would have the opportunity to veto that
19 bill.
20 And so what happens is the Governor does the veto and
21 ultimately it gets sent back to the House where it
22 originated. If it is a Senate bill, it goes back to the
23 Senate first, if it was the House, it goes back to the
24 House first.
25 And so the question is how long can veto messages,
19
1 how many times can they come back for consideration. As
2 you know, it takes an extraordinary vote to override a
3 Governor's veto and it is not done that often.
4 The staff on both sides of the House and Senate
5 staffs and the clerk's office and the secretary's office
6 have been working on something that would clarify it for
7 them. And so the way this language reads on Page 2 of
8 this proposal is that legislative action on a veto shall
9 be available only during the next regular or next special
10 session, whichever occurs first.
11 So that if you have a special session intervening,
12 the question has been, does the originating house have to
13 take this up? And if they fail to do so, does that mean
14 it is put off until the next regular legislative session?
15 This I think, for all concerned, is probably going to be
16 the best answer.
17 Now Commissioner Jennings is working on this a little
18 with her staff. And do you have a proposed amendment that
19 you want to make to this? Okay. So I think they are
20 going to make a proposed amendment that changes that a
21 little bit. And I guess is just clarifies it, if we can
22 have that read for Commissioner Jennings.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Is the amendment on the table?
24 Would you read the amendment, please?
25 READING CLERK: By Commissioners Jennings and Scott,
20
1 on Page 2, Lines 4 through 7, delete those lines and
2 insert, special session, whichever occurs first, and this
3 shall be entered on its journal. If the originating house
4 votes to reenact a vetoed measure, whether in a regular or
5 special session, and the other house does not consider or
6 fails to reenact the vetoed measure, no further
7 consideration by either house at any subsequent session
8 may be taken.
9 If a vetoed measure is presented at a special
10 session, and the originating house does not consider it,
11 the measure will be available for consideration at any
12 intervening special session and until the end of the next
13 regular session.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. You are recognized,
15 Commissioner Jennings.
16 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
17 Commissioners, you are really just helping the Legislature
18 at the moment. I'm not sure if the world will end if we
19 don't do this, but it will certainly help us because at
20 the present time the Constitution says that a vetoed
21 measure will be taken up at the next special or regular
22 session. And there seems to be some confusion as to what
23 that means.
24 Now historically the Senate has taken the position
25 that that just means the next time you can get to a veto
21
1 message, you better take it up or it is deemed abandoned.
2 Through the years, the House has shared that position with
3 us.
4 Most recently, and on pretty good legal basis, the
5 House believes that perhaps that is not the way we should
6 look at it, that in fact we probably have the measure
7 available to us, that when they say "special" or
8 "regular," the measures are available to us until the end
9 of the regular session following the time in which the
10 veto message takes place.
11 It came up this year. As you may remember, when we
12 were here during the special session in November, there
13 was some discussion as to whether there would be an
14 override of the Governor's veto of several issues. The
15 Senate took the position that that was probably the
16 appropriate time to take that up, the House took the
17 position they felt it was still available to us at some
18 future time.
19 So to clarify all this, this is one of these
20 housekeeping things that you will help the Legislature.
21 Those of us who have been in the Legislature have talked
22 about it and we think perhaps the most equitable way of
23 approaching it -- and Commissioner Thompson put this in
24 when we were talking early on -- the most equitable way is
25 saying, in fact, those measures are available until the
22
1 end of the next regular session following the veto.
2 And that's essentially what we have done, that we can
3 either take them up at a special session that comes after
4 the veto occurs, or the next regular session. But at the
5 close of the regular session the vetoes are no longer
6 available.
7 Perhaps Commissioner Scott would like to enlighten us
8 further.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think you made it very clear
10 that what this does is make it clear that you can take it
11 up either at the special session, if you don't, or if one
12 house doesn't it would carry forward to the end of the
13 regular session, the next regular session; is that it?
14 At the present time I think the Governor's staff
15 agreed with the Senate interpretation as being the proper
16 one under the existing Constitution. What this would do
17 is remove any question is what your amendment -- which I
18 believe Commissioner Thompson supports. Am I right,
19 Commissioner Thompson?
20 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I support
21 it. And some of the members are asking for copies. Does
22 everybody have a copy of this?
23 And the logic for changing it from what the proposal
24 was is that you might have a special session, as the
25 chairman has indicated, I think some of the problems that
23
1 even the Governor has, is you might have a special session
2 for a day or two days or whatever and it is just not
3 proper to considered two or three vetoed messages. Rather
4 than that, go on to the regular session is what members of
5 legislature past, present and others are saying.
6 There is a second part to this proposal,
7 Mr. Chairman, that Commissioner Scott has filed.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We are on the amendment at the
9 moment.
10 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: That's right, I'm sorry.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: And Commissioner Barkdull was up.
12 Do you have a question, Commissioner Barkdull, or a
13 comment on the amendment?
14 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Let me see if I can ask
15 Commissioner Jennings a question to be sure I understand
16 this. If the Governor vetoed at the conclusion of the
17 session in '97 a measure, and there had been a special
18 session of the Legislature in September of '97 and nobody
19 took it up, and then you get to the regular session of
20 '98, then you would have until the conclusion of the
21 regular session of '98 to reach this issue. Is that the
22 purpose of this amendment?
23 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: Yes.
24 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well you had better correct that.
24
1 It wouldn't be in '98 because this wouldn't become
2 effective until it passed. And it would not apply to '97.
3 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I stand corrected. I was
4 trying to get the chronological effect of what would
5 happen, but I stand corrected on the dates.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barnett is up. You
7 are next, Commissioner Smith.
8 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: For a question.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Question of whom?
10 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Commissioner Jennings.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Jennings. She
12 yields for a question.
13 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Friendly question.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: And definitely if it is friendly.
15 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: On Line 19 it refers to a
16 vetoed measure is presented at a special session. You use
17 the phrase "presented." In the Constitution currently,
18 presentment of a bill to a Governor, as you know, has a
19 special meaning. I mean, it is once the House and Senate
20 have actually signed off on the measure and formally
21 presented it.
22 I mean, is that just -- does that word have any
23 special meaning? It seems to me that the bill would
24 always be before, potentially before -- the vetoed measure
25 would always be before the House or Senate, depending on
25
1 where it originated. So I wasn't sure what that term
2 meant.
3 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: My lawyer had to tell me.
4 But in fact there is a procedure where the Secretary of
5 State must present the veto messages to the House or the
6 Senate, and that's what it is termed. They will present
7 them to us. Once they are vetoed, they reside with the
8 Secretary of State, they don't reside with the body in
9 which the bill originated. So the veto message has to be
10 presented to us.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Jennings, under the
12 '68 Constitutional, isn't there language in there that
13 says something like the Secretary must lay it before the
14 Legislature?
15 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: Yeah.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think the secretary told me
17 that. And what this would do is keep the Secretary of
18 State from having to lay it before the Legislature, just
19 present it.
20 She says laying it before the Legislature is
21 presenting it. Is that what you understood?
22 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: Any kind of nice, clean word
23 we can use is okay with me.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: "Presented" sounds better to me,
25 particularly in today's climate, Commissioner Jennings.
26
1 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: My thoughts exactly,
2 Mr. Chairman.
3 (Off-the-record comment.)
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: She says both would be in the
5 Constitution if this amendment is adopted. Is everybody
6 clear on the amendment? Do you want to close on it?
7 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: Well just if there are no
8 further questions I would move the amendment. And, again,
9 as I have tried to share with you, historically, the House
10 and Senate have agreed on the interpretation. And this
11 year there was some disagreement, and we felt that that
12 may be the way of things in the future. So there is no
13 reason to have a question. Any way is okay with us, we
14 just want to know what the rules are.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Does everybody understand the
16 amendment? All in favor of the amendment say aye;
17 opposed?
18 (Verbal vote taken.)
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The amendment carries. Now we
20 are on the proposal. Commissioner Thompson, do you want
21 to explain the rest of your proposal or do you yield to
22 Commissioner Scott?
23 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I yield to Commissioner
24 Scott.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott, you have the
27
1 floor.
2 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,
3 this is the same issue that we previously addressed in a
4 proposal that I had which clarifies the 72-hour waiting
5 period on the passage of the budget. It was intended to
6 be the final budget in the form it would go to the
7 Governor, which is what my proposal said. This language
8 says it a little bit differently, taking the last vote
9 necessary before it would go.
10 But we are going to ask, we are going to have style
11 and drafting and the lawyers finally look at which
12 version, but that's the basic idea. And it is included in
13 this proposal also. We have already passed it
14 unanimously.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Then this provision
16 ties in with your previous proposal, is what you are
17 saying, and is the same thing, except it makes it appear
18 in this context as well. All right. Does everybody
19 understand the proposal now, as amended? Would you like
20 to close, please, Mr. Thompson, Commissioner Thompson?
21 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
22 Members. This is primarily a housekeeping measure, as
23 Commissioner Jennings has told you. I think it is wise to
24 send it on to style and drafting and then if we come up
25 with a package of things that we think are
28
1 noncontroversial and needed, this is one that I think
2 should be included. And I think it fits about on that
3 rung of the ladder and I recommend it to you.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Unlock the machine
5 and let's vote.
6 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Everybody voted? Lock the
8 machine and announce the vote.
9 READING CLERK: Twenty-eight yeas and zero nays,
10 Mr. Chairman.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: And so the proposal as amended
12 passes.
13 Now we'll move to the committee substitute for
14 Proposal 170 by the Committee on Executive and
15 Commissioner Mills, recommended as a committee substitute
16 and disapproved by the Committee of Executive and sent to
17 the floor. Commissioner Mills, you are recognized.
18 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, I've spoken to the
19 chairman of rules about this. I would like to move to
20 temporarily pass this and take it up later.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull, as
22 chairman, did you have any input from anybody else?
23 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: No, sir, not today.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you have any recommendation?
25 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: No, sir, I think he should be
29
1 accorded the same privilege the Chair has been giving
2 other people.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I haven't been giving it,
4 everybody else has, without objection. So, without
5 objection, we will temporarily pass it.
6 Then we'll move to -- well, Proposal No. 2 by
7 Commissioner Sundberg, who is not here. Incidentally, we
8 have not announced this and I think most of you are aware
9 that Commissioner Sundberg's son passed away last Friday,
10 and that the memorial service, as I understand it, is
11 today. We have all, those of us that knew about it,
12 conveyed our sympathy and our prayers to the family,
13 particularly to our own Commissioner Sundberg.
14 I anticipate that he will probably be able to return
15 to our work pretty soon. But it is a very sad situation
16 when anyone loses a child. And for Commissioner Sundberg,
17 I'm sure it is a difficult time.
18 Commissioner Smith.
19 COMMISSIONER SMITH: While this, too, is a
20 noncontroversial housekeeping matter --
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Has anybody read this? Maybe I
22 ought to have the title read.
23 COMMISSIONER SMITH: We ask that it be temporarily
24 passed until Commissioner Sundberg can rejoin us, and we
25 hope and pray that it is very, very soon.
30
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'm going to ask the Reader to
2 read the title and then we will, without objection,
3 temporarily pass it. Read it.
4 READING CLERK: Proposal 2, a proposal to revise
5 Article I, Section 2, Florida Constitution; providing for
6 citizens to enjoy equal opportunity to employment,
7 housing, public accommodations, public education, and
8 other benefits and authorizing governmental agencies to
9 take actions to remedy the effects of past discrimination
10 in certain areas.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Without objection,
12 it's temporarily passed and we'll move to Proposal
13 No. 186. Would you read it, please?
14 READING CLERK: Proposal 186, a proposal to revise
15 Article VI, Section 1, Florida Constitution; limiting
16 political contributions.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That's by Commissioner Thompson.
18 It was approved by the Committee on Ethics and Elections,
19 and consideration has been deferred until this week.
20 Commissioner Thompson, you are recognized to introduce
21 your proposal. Was it a unanimous vote in the committee,
22 sir? I understand it was.
23 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I'm not sure. I think so.
24 Commissioner Barton corrects me.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: There's also an amendment on the
31
1 table. Commissioner Thompson, you need to tell us just
2 briefly what it is before we take up the amendment.
3 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes, actually the amendment
4 now is the proposal. It might be wise, Mr. Chairman, to
5 read the amendment.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: There's an amendment on the
7 table. Would you read it? I've got it. I think
8 everybody may have it.
9 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I'm sending it around now.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It's being distributed. It's on
11 everybody's desk, if it's not, it's being distributed.
12 Let's go ahead and read the amendment which is offered by
13 Commissioner Thompson.
14 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Thompson, on Page 1,
15 Lines 16 through 19, delete a person, political party,
16 political committee or committee of continuous existence
17 may not accept more than $500 per election from any entity
18 or contribute more than $500 per election to a candidate,
19 and insert, (A) aggregate contributions from a contributor
20 to a political party and its committees shall not exceed
21 the amount that may be contributed to a candidate by an
22 individual other than the candidate under Florida law; (B)
23 a political party and its committees will not contribute
24 an aggregate amount to a candidate that exceeds the amount
25 that any other entity other than the candidate may
32
1 contribute to a candidate under Florida law.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Now this is really the proposal
3 now, the amendment, but we are on the amendment. So you
4 may address it, Commissioner Thompson.
5 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
6 Members. This -- you will note that I have one other
7 proposal here on the veto messages. I filed that kind of
8 as a facilitator since I chaired the Legislative
9 Committee. And also with Commissioner Evans-Jones I filed
10 something to facilitate your deliberations on
11 apportionment. Those are things that I think were brought
12 to us by a lot of many different people, and as chairman
13 of that committee I felt like should stay alive and I was
14 just trying to facilitate.
15 The only measure that I have filed for consideration
16 on a personal basis is this one. And you have heard me
17 say many times that I really like the Legislature and I
18 like our government in Florida, but you have also heard me
19 say that I think there's some dangers. And I think those
20 dangers are increasing every time we have an election.
21 And I don't want us to turn into the kind of circus that
22 we have had at that federal level and to have hearings and
23 embarrassments and all of those kinds of things. Because
24 we have been lucky in Florida, we have got good public
25 officials. I think they really work hard for us.
33
1 But I'll tell you something, we are getting real,
2 real close. And the reason is there's just too much money
3 in the political and campaign system to have a healthy
4 system. Now, I don't think anybody in the public out
5 there would deny that. But I think we have a
6 responsibility ourselves to take a look at it, and I think
7 we have got to be careful and concerned about federal
8 constitutional rights, and I am. And I think we have to
9 be careful and concerned about the rights of people, no
10 matter what their means in life, to seek public office.
11 And I think I am and I think we have been.
12 And I first filed this bill and I was getting under
13 the deadline and I hadn't filed a thing. And I just kept
14 feeling stronger and stronger about it. And so I got with
15 the staff and said, Well, this is the best I can do today.
16 And that is, I wrote something that Commissioners Morsani
17 and Riley told me last week, Well, by golly, your proposal
18 is finally one that is nonlegalistic and we can all
19 understand it, and we like it. It's good and basic.
20 Well, I have to apologize to you a little bit, I did
21 feel like it needed to be changed, and I said that the
22 last time. I don't think it's good to put a dollar amount
23 in the Constitution like that.
24 So, if you will notice, at the top of my amendment,
25 before sub A, I'm just deleting the language of the
34
1 proposal and starting over. But the concept is the same.
2 And if it were the law today in our Constitution, the
3 impact would be the same because our contributions are
4 restricted in each election cycle to $500 now.
5 I assume that everybody understands that you can give
6 a candidate a total of $1,500 if they have a primary, and
7 then if they have a runoff and then if they have a general
8 election. So that's really $1,500 per election cycle.
9 And what I'm saying is, number two, nobody, nobody,
10 including political parties or whoever it is, can give a
11 candidate more than the amount set by statute. Right now
12 that's $500 per cycle or $1,500 per election. Nobody can
13 do that. So there won't be this reason to raise all of
14 this soft money, all of this slush that's out there.
15 And you don't have this reason for all of these
16 people to go around, who are in office, whether it's
17 legislative or whether it's gubernatorial or whatever it
18 is, and try to raise huge bucks for some party or PAC or
19 whatever so that huge bucks can then go to that candidate.
20 These candidates don't really need it, it's been proven.
21 But because everybody else can do it, everybody else is
22 scared not to do it. And I'm tell you, we are going to
23 get embarrassed about it before it's all over.
24 So why not just take this basic, simple approach and
25 say everybody can give the same thing, no matter how you
35
1 form yourself up. And then, the second part is, which is
2 sub A, nobody can give to any of those groups, including a
3 political party, any amount more than you could give a
4 candidate.
5 So the political parties can raise a lot of money
6 that way. And they can do everything for their slate,
7 whether you are Democrat or Republican or whatever you
8 are, except you can't put money into that race, over and
9 above the amount that anybody else can put in that race.
10 That's what soft money is. That's what it is all
11 about. And I want to tell you, this has been going on 10,
12 15 years and it has gotten progressively worse and worse.
13 It used to be that people hadn't thought of this bright
14 idea yet and you didn't have these huge amounts of money
15 being solicited and being paid.
16 So I would submit to you that a lot of people out
17 there accused of being special interests and wanting to
18 control politics by these big donations don't like it so
19 much. They feel like it's, in the words of one
20 lobbyist -- and I started to send you-all a bunch of press
21 clippings and all that, but I'll tell you something, I
22 never did too much feel the need to be in a fraternity and
23 I never did too much feel the need to run a poll to get
24 somebody to tell me what I was supposed to think. I've
25 got that much respect for you.
36
1 So I don't think you need the news media telling you
2 what you should think. This is just a simple, basic
3 problem in the state of Florida and throughout this
4 nation. And we can start right here and start right now
5 by this simple amendment to our state's Constitution.
6 This says there ought to be a limit as to what you
7 give, and that goes for everybody, and that goes to
8 everybody. And that's the end of it. It's just not hard
9 to understand. I guarantee you, you put 22 votes up
10 there, and the public will give you the vote they need.
11 And so with that, I just want to recommend this issue to
12 you and tell you that I think it could be one of the most
13 significant things that we can do for the future of our
14 state. Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any proponents?
16 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Question.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You have a question? Hawkes was
18 up first. Commissioner Hawkes, do you have a question?
19 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: No.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Ford-Coates,
21 Commissioner Thompson yields to your question.
22 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Commissioner Thompson, the
23 law as it currently stands refers to person, political
24 committee, a committee of continuous existence and limits
25 it to $500 per election. This proposal also refers to
37
1 political party. Is that the difference of what you are
2 trying to get to as opposed to what the statutes currently
3 say?
4 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I think so, uh-huh.
5 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: So that people can
6 currently give more than $500 to political parties, not to
7 committees of continuous existence or political
8 committees?
9 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No, I think you can currently
10 give more than $500 to a committee of continuous
11 existence. I think through a dues type of donation you
12 can give more than $500.
13 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Right, but then those
14 entities cannot give more than $500 to a candidate.
15 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Today --
16 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: No person, political
17 committee, a committee of continuous existence can give
18 any more than $500 per election.
19 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Nobody but the party, yeah.
20 The party can give up to 50,000.
21 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: But the party can. So
22 what we are really doing is getting rid of that loophole?
23 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes, and there will be no
24 need then to give it to the party because the party is
25 going to be restricted to $500 into the candidate's
38
1 coffers.
2 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Would you explain to me
3 why you believe this should be in the Constitution and not
4 in the statute?
5 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Well, I'll tell you, it's
6 like a lot of things that we have been working on here. I
7 don't think it'll find its way into the statutes. I think
8 it's been recommended several times and it hasn't been
9 done. And for that reason, I think it's something that's
10 worthy of our consideration. About 90, 95 percent of what
11 we deliberated upon, in my judgment, would have been able
12 to be done statutorily.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right now, proponent?
14 Question from Commissioner Henderson.
15 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Commissioner Thompson, would
16 you believe me -- I have heard everything you said and I
17 agree with everything that you have said. What's
18 troubling me is I want to understand the effect because
19 now I'm starting to be confused. Under your proposal, if
20 adopted, would a political party have the ability to
21 spend, as it does now, $50,000 in a legislative campaign?
22 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No, it would not.
23 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: That would be the state
24 Democratic or Republican party or federal, for that
25 matter; is that right?
39
1 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Right.
2 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Now last year we saw in the
3 presidential campaigns a tremendous amount of, shall we
4 just say commercials paid for by the national parties that
5 were run in the state that was not supposedly for a
6 particular candidate, but for support of the party, which
7 had the effect of helping particular candidates. Would
8 this address that issue at all?
9 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I doubt it. I think that's
10 probably going to be covered by federal constitutional
11 protections of free speech and association. And as long
12 as it doesn't go directly into the campaign of a
13 candidate, I think political parties and others can spend
14 unlimited funds. And I don't think there's anything that
15 we can do about that in our Florida Constitution.
16 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: In a limited sense, let me
17 ask this also. We have seen in the last few legislative
18 cycles, I think by both parties, large television buys
19 that came out of their Washington or New York
20 headquarters, you know, to buy up the local markets
21 throughout the state and then those things were made
22 available to local candidates, or actually it may have
23 been that the expenditure was done from there. Would this
24 get to that at all?
25 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I don't think so. I think
40
1 anybody that's worried about political parties and the
2 role that they play shouldn't worry. First of all, it
3 will cut down on the amount of money they are able to
4 collect per entity. That's $500 per entity in Florida.
5 And I think that's healthy. I think that's very healthy.
6 Secondly, it will cut back to $500 under today's law
7 what they can give for elections, primary and so forth.
8 And I think that's healthy. But I still think -- there's
9 going to be a great place for the political parties. I
10 think they will go back to doing really and truly what we
11 need them to do, which is help us with the debate on
12 philosophy and so forth. And there may be times when that
13 coincides very well with particular candidates, and I
14 think that's part of freedom of speech and association.
15 And we are somewhat limited as to what we can do about
16 that.
17 But as time goes by, if we do something like this, I
18 think those other issues will be neatened up not only by
19 our state but maybe by other states, maybe by the federal
20 government and probably judicial decisions.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Now Commissioner Connor, then
22 Commissioner Barnett, then Commissioner Barton for a
23 question. Commissioner Connor.
24 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: I have a question likewise.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: He yields.
41
1 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Commissioner Thompson, if I
2 understood the aim of what you are trying to get at is you
3 have wanted to limit, both directly and indirectly, the
4 amounts of money that an entity or person can contribute
5 to a political campaign to avoid the abuses of excess
6 money buying an election, in essence. Am I correct about
7 that?
8 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes, excess spending in
9 elections is not good for us.
10 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: The question that I have
11 really -- and I think I understand that through Paragraph
12 B. The question I have, though, really relates to
13 Paragraph A, which limits the contributions that people
14 may make to a political party.
15 Historically, from before the beginning of the
16 republic, political speech has been deemed to be a
17 preferred form of speech. This goes well beyond, it seems
18 to me, limiting the amount of money that flows into an
19 election campaign, and by virtue of the provisions of
20 Paragraph A strikes me that it might -- that it would
21 significantly limit the ability of a political party to
22 get its message out, in terms of philosophy.
23 I'm not sure if that's what you intend, but you
24 certainly cap out the amount of money that a private
25 contributor can give to their political party, which will
42
1 most certainly in today's media age have a substantially
2 diminishing effect, I believe, on the ability of that
3 party to get its message out, without regard to any
4 particular election or candidate.
5 I'm not sure if you intend that, but I have grave
6 reservations about the potential unintended effect that
7 may flow out of Paragraph A and I hope you will address
8 that.
9 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I'll be glad to. I think
10 that the issue for us there is, what is a campaign
11 contribution and what is a contribution to a party. And
12 it is a couple of things.
13 First of all, it is freedom of speech. And secondly,
14 it's freedom of association. And what the courts have
15 held, I think, the way I understand it, is that you
16 have -- some reasonable limit can be put on that because
17 you have other alternatives. Now I do believe, as you
18 say, that it will cut back on the amount of money that
19 parties can collect. I think you are correct in that.
20 And that's exactly what I'm trying to do and that's
21 exactly what I'm trying to convince you is wrong. Because
22 I believe not just money influences elections. And that's
23 what the court said, I think, in Buckley versus Valeo.
24 And I don't know that case word for word, but I do know
25 that what the court said and I think what the court
43
1 intended there was that there are other things that you
2 can do for that candidate or for that party that will
3 espouse that philosophy.
4 Anybody, for example, can make independent
5 expenditures on behalf of those things and there's nothing
6 that anybody can do about that. Those are, I think,
7 absolutely protected.
8 So, instead of giving a political party to spend as
9 it wants to 25,000, 50,000, having that money solicited
10 from people in the public and particularly special
11 interests, which is where it's usually solicited from by
12 parties, then I think maybe some of those people will be
13 interested enough in government and there will probably
14 still be some solicitation, but there will be plenty of
15 money that will be spent, I think we can all depend on
16 that. I think it is the way it's going to be addressed
17 and the way that it's going to be solicited that this will
18 help.
19 But you are exactly right, I'm trying to limit what
20 you are concerned about.
21 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: May I follow briefly? So, if,
22 for example, a contributor wanted to give designated funds
23 to their party, to promote a campaign that would point out
24 the philosophical points of distinction between their
25 party and the opposing party, if I understand your
44
1 amendment, their ability to do that would be limited by
2 the limitations that would be involved as to how much they
3 could contribute in the aggregate to a candidate; is that
4 right?
5 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes, but it would not in any
6 way limit independent expenditures. So they could do
7 exactly the same thing without going through that
8 apparatus.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barnett is next. He
10 yields.
11 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Commission Thompson, I like
12 this proposal and I plan to support it, but I wanted to
13 ask you in, line A of your amendment you talk about a
14 contributor. If you would explain the scope of that word.
15 I mean, I presume it is a person, a political party, a
16 committee of continuous existence, but I think you might
17 need to give us some idea about who is a contributor.
18 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Well I think any legal entity
19 is a contributor, just one entity now. I think you can
20 continue the practice that you now have. I have no
21 concern personally about, as long as you limit
22 contributions, allowing corporations to make
23 contributions, for example. A corporation would be a
24 contributor.
25 In Florida I think it's been held that a corporation
45
1 may have several subsidiaries and all of them can give
2 money. I think I can give money and I think my wife can
3 give money and I think my children can give money as long
4 as it's their own money.
5 So there will be -- let me tell you, folks, there
6 won't be any shortage of money, still. There won't be any
7 shortage of money. But I think it's going to change
8 things an awful lot. But your point is well taken. It
9 means exactly just what you would think it would mean.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barton for a
11 question.
12 COMMISSIONER BARTON: Yes. I voted against this in
13 committee, but only because I had a question that still
14 remains unanswered. And that was limited to the
15 contributions from an individual to a political party.
16 Are there any states where that's been limited? It
17 doesn't say in the background information.
18 And my concern is, can we tell an individual that
19 they can't contribute money to a political party any more
20 than we can tell them that they can't contribute to a
21 church or to their sorority or to their college or a
22 charity?
23 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Or to a candidate. And we
24 tell them everyday; we tell them everyday about a
25 candidate. And I think a party would fit that.
46
1 Now you raise a good point and I'm not trying to
2 avoid that point. There's the possibility of
3 constitutional concern about that. But I think in my
4 response to Commissioner Connor, freedom of speech has
5 been considered, freedom of association has been
6 considered. You have other alternatives, you will have
7 other alternatives in Florida rather than just giving to a
8 party to express yourself as far as speech, to express
9 your association.
10 So as far as those are available, my understanding is
11 that this should pass constitutional muster.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner
13 Wetherington for a question.
14 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Let me ask this question.
15 Number one, is this going to weaken, in any way, political
16 parties, number one, major political parties, or also a
17 possible effect on a minor political party? How would it
18 effect -- in other words, we have a party system in this
19 country. We have representative democracies. Obviously,
20 we all know that political parties have been very
21 fundamental in this. Is this going to undermine in some
22 way or weaken the effectiveness of political parties?
23 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Well, personally, I don't
24 think that it will. As I said, this is a practice of --
25 this solicitation of 10, 15, 25, $30,000 for the party and
47
1 then the party ultimately giving to candidates up to
2 $50,000 I think is something that's kind of evolved over
3 the last decade or so. I think the parties were strong
4 before it evolved and I think that they will be strong
5 afterwards. They may even be a little stronger because I
6 think they will be working on their philosophy and not
7 raising money just to stick straight into campaigns.
8 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Right now they could give
9 $50,000 to the candidate.
10 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: To a legislative candidate,
11 that's my understanding.
12 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I could contribute $1,000
13 or $5,000 to the party and the party could collect a lot
14 of those and the party could give how much to the
15 candidate, 50,000?
16 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Up to 50,000 is my
17 understanding.
18 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: $50,000, I mean, for
19 example, in Dade County, $50,000 in a countywide campaign
20 in Dade County is basically nothing. I mean, it literally
21 wouldn't even begin to make a difference.
22 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Well, I'll tell you
23 something, I know people the run statewide that spend
24 many, many hours trying to raise $50,000. Dade County may
25 be a little different than statewide. But I think that
48
1 amount is significant. I think that's too much for any
2 one entity to put into an individual campaign, and I think
3 it can be done otherwise.
4 You know, as the old fellow said to the king fish
5 when he was dying in that book -- what was the name of it,
6 I can't remember the name of it -- but he said, It could
7 have been done different. And I think this could be done
8 different and better.
9 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Would it affect
10 minority -- let's say a small party, a minority party is
11 trying to get started and has a good cause and would like
12 to raise money to support minority candidates. How would
13 it affect the ability of minority parties to advance in
14 our political system?
15 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Well, they would have to play
16 by the same rules that everybody else does. And I think
17 that's healthy. I think the candidates themselves, in
18 particular, if you want to look at that, everybody else
19 out there in that person's legislative district or in that
20 Dade County can't give them but $500 apiece, and along
21 comes a party that may get all of those funds from a Ross
22 Perot or a Chinese Government and give it to that person,
23 I don't want that, personally.
24 I would just as soon go along with this and everybody
25 play by the same rules. And I think if minority parties
49
1 are going to flourish in Florida, they will do it in spite
2 of this. I don't know that they have done so well so far
3 any way, so I don't think this will hurt them.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any more questions? Commissioner
5 Thompson, you have the right to close, so I'll come back
6 to you. Commissioner Hawkes, you have been very patient.
7 It's your turn.
8 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
9 would like to start with a couple of disclaimers. One, I
10 don't like opposing Commissioner Thompson. Normally I'm
11 very supportive of what he's supportive of; I think we
12 share a lot of philosophies.
13 Secondly, I would like to point out that when we are
14 talking about limiting the money in campaigns, we had some
15 other proposals, Commissioner Corr's and I guess a
16 disclaimer, I voted for those because I thought those
17 might have an effect of actually limiting the money in the
18 campaigns.
19 I think this proposal, though, however, is really
20 going to protect incumbents. I would challenge anyone to
21 show me a race where an incumbent member was defeated by a
22 member of the opposite party where he didn't have party
23 help. I would also challenge the commissioners to go up
24 to the Secretary of the State's office and look at the
25 campaign reports for members of the legislature who have
50
1 already opened up their campaign accounts, which is
2 probably the vast majority. And they have 35 to $50,000
3 probably on-hand already.
4 I would also ask you to remember some of the things
5 that have already been said, in other words, corporations
6 can give money, their subsidiaries can give money. And,
7 also, there's nothing to prevent you from creating 30 PACs
8 or 100 PACs and each one of your PACs could then give
9 $500. And that's not just a hypothetical, in fact, many
10 organizations in Florida do have numerous PACs that they
11 can write checks from.
12 This was illustrated to me in a rather graphic way
13 when I saw that my opponent had the Realtors' support and
14 blessing and then I looked at his campaign report and
15 there was a contribution from the, I think it was the Relo
16 PAC or something, and then Real PAC, and Realtor PAC. And
17 they all have the same address, they were all given the
18 same day, they had different names and they were in fact
19 different organizations, but they all came and they were
20 signed by the same individual.
21 Obviously if I had someone in my district who
22 supported me, they couldn't make additional individuals;
23 they had just what they had. I raised more money in my
24 district when I first ran, in 1990 when I won, than my
25 opponent did. But my opponent out-raised from
51
1 contributors probably better than ten to one from what I
2 raised because he had the Tallahassee connection.
3 You know, I'm sure that lobbyists would love to give
4 money to the person they think is best able to represent
5 the district that they are coming from, but in reality,
6 they support the people who they think are going to win,
7 and that's the incumbent. There is no way that the
8 incumbent can be successfully challenged unless -- and if
9 this is your philosophy and this might be fine -- unless
10 he's independently wealthy.
11 In other words, a man or woman of average means would
12 not be able to successfully challenge and take on the
13 typical legislative candidate. And it doesn't happen now.
14 The only time an incumbent is unseated in Florida now by a
15 member of the opposite party is when his own political
16 party comes and gets involved.
17 Now, there are some other questions that I would ask
18 you to consider before voting on this. In 1992, we
19 reduced the amount that you could receive from one person
20 from $1,000 down to $500 per election cycle. So it used
21 to be you could get $3,000 from any entity and now you can
22 get $1500 from an entity.
23 And if we look at the campaign reports, it's clear
24 that the money involved in campaigns hasn't gone down at
25 all. It's just as much money, it's just that now we have
52
1 had to find other ways, and I would submit less
2 accountable ways, to fund these campaigns. We have
3 created more entities, we write more checks. And so the
4 professional players, they do well and they prosper
5 because they find ways, they're there every year, year in,
6 year out. And they find ways to get around to achieve
7 their goals.
8 Of course, the people who might support you if you
9 decide to run for office from your district, they might
10 just get enthusiastic because maybe they belong to a civic
11 club with you or they go to your church, and they want to
12 help you out. They don't know all these fancy rules.
13 They think, I'm allowed to give 500 bucks and they give
14 500 bucks, and that's it.
15 I would also tell you from personal experience that
16 right now when a party spends $50,000 on a legislative
17 race, there has to be accountability. They work with the
18 candidate and the candidate signs off on what they do.
19 And sometimes they will tell the party, No, I don't want
20 to do that, or, Yes, I do want to do that.
21 Florida is the fourth largest state in the union and
22 there is a lot at stake when you have a $44 billion
23 budget, which we might have next year. This year I think
24 it was $42.5 billion. Obviously, Florida's industry is
25 concerned about who is making these decisions. And they
53
1 are going to become involved and they are going to give
2 money to the parties and the parties are going to become
3 involved and they are going to participate.
4 If you make it so the party can only give $500 to the
5 candidate, then the party is going to do independent
6 expenditures. Why did we never have independent
7 expenditures to the extent that we had them last cycle in
8 previous cycles? Because we tried to make artificial
9 rules. It's expensive to run for office because there is
10 a lot at stake. We ask these people to carry an awful lot
11 of obligation and responsibility.
12 People are concerned, the way we get our message out
13 is through spending money. And if we pass this, I agree
14 with Commissioner Thompson, I think the voters would
15 probably adopt it. But they would be adopting it to
16 achieve a goal that they are not going to achieve with
17 this proposal.
18 If you want to make it so that we can still have
19 competitive elections, Florida I think by most accounts is
20 a two-party state, if you want to make it so that both
21 parties can compete, then we ought to not make it so that
22 we just favor incumbents. I think to make it competitive
23 we need to allow the parties to participate and we need to
24 allow them to participate directly so that we have
25 accountability from the candidate.
54
1 So when a mail piece goes out that you think is
2 offensive, there is somebody that has to answer to that
3 because it came through his campaign account. You know,
4 maybe there's some ability to dodge there, but it's not
5 the same as independent expenditures.
6 There's still going to be big money in these races,
7 it's just that it's going to be more hidden. And so for
8 those reasons, I would ask you to vote against the
9 proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Connor.
11 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak
12 in opposition to the proposal with reluctance because of
13 my great respect for Commissioner Thompson, and because I
14 believe I share many of his thoughts as they relate to
15 financial abuses associated with campaign spending.
16 But I'm particularly concerned about the effects of
17 Paragraph A of the proposal, which imposes what I would
18 submit to you are very draconian limits on the amount of
19 money that a person can contribute to a political party.
20 It seems to me that the real evil, if you will, that
21 Commissioner Thompson wants to get at is the undue
22 influence that money can have on a campaign.
23 But I think the political parties play a role in our
24 society that go well beyond just a given election cycle.
25 Because the political parties, when they are doing what
55
1 they ought to be doing, are supposed to be promoting a
2 philosophy of government, a world view, if you will, about
3 how we ought to order ourselves within the political
4 arena, a view about the role of government in the place of
5 our lives, and other important contributions that
6 political parties make to developing the ideas that
7 ultimately will take hegemony in the marketplace of ideas.
8 When we come in and limit the amount of money that an
9 individual can contribute to a political party, we have a
10 chilling effect on the dialogue that takes place,
11 notwithstanding what may happen in a given election cycle,
12 but we have a dramatic, and I would submit to you chilling
13 effect on the ability of a political party to get its
14 message out. We live in a state with 14 million people,
15 with 13 or 14 major media markets. And money is the means
16 by which the message gets disseminated to the people.
17 While I support in the strongest way the elimination
18 of special interest money and undue influence of
19 contributions in elections, I don't wish in any way to
20 limit the ability of a party to disseminate its message,
21 to distinguish itself from other parties who may be
22 contending for primacy in the marketplace.
23 This will not only have the effect of benefiting
24 incumbents, this will have the effect of perpetuating the
25 hegemony of the Republican and Democratic parties in our
56
1 existing political landscape because they will continue to
2 travel forward, in large part, based on their history,
3 their name recognition, their ideas, et cetera.
4 But a fledgling new party who wishes to compete in
5 the arena will be at a decided disadvantage because it
6 will have a dramatically restricted ability to get its
7 ideas into the forefront for consideration by the public.
8 So while I support in the strongest of terms the
9 efforts to limit the undue influence of special interest
10 money -- and frankly, I'm not as concerned about the
11 contribution of money to political parties to candidates
12 as Commissioner Thompson is, although I understand what
13 has happened in terms of the abuse of the system with the
14 soft money contributions. I am profoundly concerned about
15 limiting the ability of people to disseminate their ideas
16 in the marketplace.
17 And while I may be able to go into the marketplace
18 and spend $5,000 on trying to get a particular political
19 message out, that $5,000 in and of itself, through an
20 independent expenditure campaign, won't gain nearly the
21 leverage it will if it's combined with the contributions
22 of 100 others who have contributed $5,000 to get that
23 message into the marketplace.
24 So I think the political parties play a proper and
25 profoundly important role in developing political
57
1 discourse in this state. And I think this proposal is
2 frankly too draconian in its impact and I will vote
3 against it.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any more opponents? Commissioner
5 Wetherington.
6 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I would just say I have
7 to join in and agree with what Commissioner Connor said.
8 In our representative form of government, people can't
9 know everything, we have to have some way to bring the
10 message to people to make our system work. The way we
11 have selected in this country to do it is through our
12 political parties, this allows representative democracy to
13 function.
14 And the political parties have to have the ability to
15 get the message out. And presumably they are not soft
16 money. Presumably a political party is not some low-level
17 kind of thing that has no interest in the public
18 well-being. It's theoretically something that promotes
19 well-being and helps to allow our representative democracy
20 to function.
21 To say that a political party can contribute up to
22 $50,000 doesn't seem to me, number one, like a terrible
23 thing. In fact, it seems to me like in many areas you
24 could argue that maybe it should even be more money.
25 I totally agree with this soft money and with the
58
1 abuses of money and all like that. If it were anything
2 else, I would agree totally. But to say that political
3 parties can't raise the money is what disturbs me. So I
4 would vote against it.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Thompson to close.
6 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
7 Members. I certainly respect the people who have spoken
8 in opposition to this, and I'm kind of wondering what they
9 are going to do about the problem because I haven't heard
10 anybody make any real suggestions.
11 People talk about soft money, but every time an issue
12 comes up about it, it's not soft money. People worry
13 about fledgling political parties. Who in the world do
14 you think if -- who do you think is going to get the money
15 if a fledgling, new political party goes and solicits
16 money from the next ten special interests? Is it going to
17 be that new little political party, or is it going to be
18 one that's got people in office and especially people in
19 office that are calling them about it?
20 So don't feel too sorry for the little party and vote
21 against this. Give them a chance, maybe, to get into the
22 ball game and let everybody be on the same and level
23 playing field.
24 Now, you know, we talked about the role of the party.
25 And I respect what Mr. Connor said and others about the
59
1 party, the party's role in our society and in our history.
2 But constitutionally there are lots of things a party can
3 do besides just collect money and give it.
4 And I will submit to you that that's all they are
5 doing today in Florida, and it's getting worse and worse
6 and worse. And while I didn't send you out a bunch of
7 newspaper clippings, I assume that all of you are
8 listening and reading and watching TV and you hear and you
9 read and you know what's going on, and it's wrong and it's
10 bad. And as I said earlier, it's certainly going to
11 embarrass us all before it's all said and done.
12 I think the political parties have a real role and I
13 think they need to get back to fulfilling those roles and
14 they do need to be espousing philosophy and they need to
15 be working on philosophy and working on voter turnout and
16 all of those things that are healthy.
17 But they don't need to be giving or receiving this
18 big money. And they don't need to be using these elected
19 officials to get it. And the very idea that this idea
20 right here is in favor of incumbents is unbelievable to
21 me. Because it is the incumbents that go to get the money
22 to go to the party that go back to them.
23 Where in the world do you think the influence comes
24 from to get the money to those parties to begin with? It
25 is not from the people that are not in office. It is from
60
1 the people who are in office. That's the problem.
2 So this is not a measure to help or to hurt
3 incumbents. It is a measure to put everybody on the same
4 playing field, to clean up our campaign laws in Florida,
5 and it is a step hand-in-hand with some limited, measured
6 form of campaign finance, government campaign finance.
7 And if you will take this step, if you will take this
8 step, I think you will see other steps. I want to see it
9 squeezed until we do know who gave and who got and until
10 we do know what the person says and what the person wants
11 and who they got money from. And it doesn't have to go
12 through some third entity to get to them. That's wrong.
13 Give them $500 or don't give them anything. Don't
14 give $25,000 to the party so they can end up with it.
15 That's what I'm saying. Squeeze this system a little bit.
16 Take a little risk, take a little risk, and you will be
17 glad you did. Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott, would you
19 take the chair? The Chairman wants to exercise a
20 prerogative which is given in the rules to close on this
21 issue.
22 (Commissioner Scott assumes the chair.)
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioners, I'm not going to
24 do this -- usually I'm going to leave the podium and come
25 down when I am involved in presenting something, but
61
1 listening to this debate I felt it was necessary that at
2 least I express the Chair's views on this issue.
3 Anybody who has dealt with politics over a period of
4 time or elections over a period of time will tell you that
5 Commissioner Thompson, who has as much knowledge about
6 this subject as anybody in the state of Florida, having
7 raised money as Speaker, having done all of the things
8 that he has discussed, and he has outlined to you a very
9 modest constitutional provision, which is the only way we
10 will ever get election reform or financial participation
11 in elections put on a reasonable basis.
12 I say to those of you who say $50,000 is not much
13 money, I say to you that that's more money than about
14 85 percent of our people make in a year in their families.
15 I say to you when that's the case, it is obscene to allow
16 that amount of money to go to political parties to go back
17 into races to defeat people.
18 To those of you who say that this would help the
19 incumbents, I say to you, the incumbents are already
20 helped. If you don't believe it, look at the incumbents
21 and the amounts of money they raise depending on their
22 positions in the Legislature. $300,000 I recall reading
23 about one who doesn't have an opponent.
24 Now we cannot expect nor can we demand that the
25 Legislature deal with this problem at all. They are
62
1 handcuffed by the need in their view to raise money to
2 stay in office to prevent their views. I think that this
3 one measure, and any measure which goes from this body
4 forth to the public that would reduce the influence of
5 obscene money, of large amounts, of these terrible amounts
6 being paid to achieve the purposes of those people who
7 happen to have been fortunate enough to have the money, no
8 matter where it came from.
9 Whether it is inherited money, which is the easiest
10 kind to spend, Commissioners, or whether it is hard-earned
11 money, which is the pretty hard kind to spend, or whether
12 it is money that falls easily from stock options or from
13 corporations that have millions and billions of dollars of
14 income a year, it is still something that we cannot sit
15 here in good conscience and let this amendment be defeated
16 and give the people an opportunity to vote on this.
17 There is no other way that we will achieve election
18 reform in our time. And those of us that are approaching
19 the end of our careers have seen this work both ways. It
20 is not a political party issue at all. We have seen it
21 where one party has got all the money and we have seen it
22 where the next party has got all the money and we have
23 seen it where the candidates here and there raise large
24 sums.
25 But I can assure you that those that have dealt with
63
1 this, and those that have had to go raise the money, to go
2 out and beg for the money, to go out and do those things,
3 need an overall revamping of this system that we have to
4 make sure that we go back to voting on issues and voting
5 intelligently.
6 And I urge you each to give this an opportunity to go
7 to the people in the forum in which it's been offered by
8 Commissioner Thompson, who has made one of the most
9 eloquent presentations for it that could be made. And I
10 add my meager voice to his. Thank you very much.
11 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. The secretary tells me
12 that we never acted on the amendment and so at this point
13 we need to vote to I assume adopt the amendment which will
14 then become the proposal that has been debated at length
15 here and discussed by proponent Commissioner Thompson.
16 All in favor of the amendment, say aye; opposed?
17 (Verbal vote taken.)
18 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: And so the amendment is adopted.
19 And now the question -- I'm sorry, for what purpose,
20 Commissioner Connor?
21 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: To inquire whether or not
22 Commissioner Douglass would yield for a question, inasmuch
23 as he has not had the opportunity to receive questions at
24 this point.
25 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Commissioner Douglass, will you
64
1 yield for a question?
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Provided the rules allow it, I
3 will.
4 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I don't think there is a rule on
5 it, so he yields.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Provided the Chair allows it.
7 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: He yields. Go ahead with your
8 question.
9 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Thank you. Commissioner
10 Douglass, my question very simply is whether or not every
11 single concern that you raise isn't adequately addressed
12 by part B of the proposal without the necessity of
13 Paragraph A.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: My answer is no.
15 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: And so the question recurs on
16 final passage of Proposal 186. Unlock the machine and
17 Commissioners prepare to vote.
18 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
19 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Have all Commissioners voted?
20 Lock the machine and record the vote.
21 READING CLERK: Twenty-one yeas and 9 nays,
22 Mr. Chairman.
23 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: And so the proposal is adopted
24 and referred to Style and Drafting.
25 Read the next proposal.
65
1 READING CLERK: Proposal 135, a proposal to revise
2 Article VII, Section 4, Florida Constitution; adding lands
3 used for conservation purposes to those lands that may by
4 law be assessed for tax purposes on the basis of their
5 character or use.
6 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Commissioner Henderson.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman, thank you.
8 This is beginning to sound like a broken record on this
9 one. I'll ask that this be deferred until the day after
10 tomorrow inasmuch as your committee that you will be
11 chairing tomorrow, F&T, will be taking up its sister
12 proposal at that time.
13 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Let me suggest to you
14 that we remind us to try to get -- the question here was a
15 definition of conservation. Let's see if we can work on
16 that before tomorrow night.
17 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Your staff put together a
18 very nice memo on this and I'm assuming that we will be
19 able to resolve the issue in your committee tomorrow.
20 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Without objection, the proposal
21 is temporarily passed.
22 Read the next proposal.
23 READING CLERK: Proposal 33, a proposal to revise
24 Article VII, Section 5, Florida Constitution; eliminating
25 the prohibition against levying a state income tax.
66
1 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Commissioner Barnett.
2 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I was trying to think of
3 something different to say other than temporarily pass.
4 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: How about you are sorry?
5 (Laughter.)
6 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Oh, but I'm not, I am not at
7 all. I just want to make sure that it is a slow press day
8 when this comes up.
9 No, actually, I talked with the chairman, the Rules
10 Committee chairman, and asked that it be temporarily
11 passed until probably tomorrow afternoon when the issue
12 will come up, assuming there is time on the calendar.
13 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. In fairness to the rules
14 chairman why don't we just temporarily pass it and then it
15 will be up to the committee to reschedule it. Any
16 objection? Without objection, show the matter temporarily
17 passed.
18 Read the next proposal.
19 READING CLERK: Committee Substitute for Proposal
20 No. 184, a proposal to revise Article VI, Section 1,
21 Florida Constitution; providing that the Legislature shall
22 prohibit certain conduct in connection with elections.
23 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay. Our executive director
24 informs me that they are distributing a staff analysis and
25 an amendment or substitute proposal; is that right,
67
1 Commissioner?
2 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
3 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: We will go ahead and recognize
4 Commissioner Mills to explain the proposal.
5 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We discussed
6 this previously last time. Commissioner Freidin and
7 others had some technical questions about the language and
8 its effect. Commissioner Freidin and I have an amendment
9 on the desk to address that.
10 But conceptually what this does is provide a basis
11 for the Legislature to deal with one of the other issues
12 that the public tells us they care about in terms of
13 elections. It is not just money, it is deception, fraud
14 and lying. This provision will allow us to direct the
15 Legislature to impose the most serious penalty on a person
16 running for public office who is deceptive, and who has
17 lied to the public; that is, remove them from office.
18 The law as it currently stands does not allow us to
19 do that because the law limits removal from office to a
20 felony. Now, this won't change the process in terms of
21 how it is done. Each house of the Legislature will judge
22 its own members, the Governor would deal with executive
23 officers, the Legislature would deal with impeachable
24 officers, the Supreme Court justices, et cetera.
25 But currently you can have fraud, deception, libel
68
1 and slander in an election and remain in office. It seems
2 to me, and it seemed to the committee which voted
3 unanimously on this, that this is an opportunity for us to
4 direct the Legislature to do something which should fully
5 restore faith in elections.
6 I'm sorry Commissioner Thompson isn't here because I
7 was going to, I think it was in Commissioner Thompson's
8 district, for those that are concerned about truth in
9 elections, it was either -- it was James Harold Smith who
10 was running for election. And he had, his two campaign
11 managers came in, one from Jackson County, one from
12 Gadsden County.
13 The one from Jackson County said, You have got to get
14 to Jackson County fast, you have got to get to Jackson
15 County very fast, they are lying about you. Well the
16 campaign manager who came from Gadsden County said, Well,
17 that's nothing, you can't go there, you have to come to
18 Gadsden County. He said, Why? He said, Because they are
19 telling the truth about you in Gadsden County.
20 (Laughter.)
21 So while lying isn't always the most derogatory thing
22 that we can say about some politicians, what this does do
23 is say that honesty in elections counts. And Commissioner
24 Freidin and I have an amendment on the desk.
25 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Read the amendment.
69
1 READING CLERK: By Commissioners Mills and Freidin,
2 on Page 1, Lines 13 through 24, delete those lines and
3 insert Section 1, regulation of elections, (A), all
4 elections by the people shall be by direct and secret
5 vote. General elections shall be determined by --
6 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: It has been distributed, a
7 lengthy amendment. Commissioner Mills, do you have any
8 further explanation?
9 COMMISSIONER MILLS: That is what I described.
10 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Questions on the amendment?
11 Anyone wish to debate the amendment? Any further --
12 Commissioner Barkdull, for what purpose?
13 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: If that amendment is on the
14 desk, I don't have it. It started out -- when he started
15 reading it, I haven't seen one like that.
16 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: How about it, Staff, is it on
17 the desk?
18 The secretary says it has been distributed. Who
19 doesn't have it? Let's get them another copy.
20 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I certainly don't want to
21 suggest that we temporarily pass something when we have an
22 opportunity to vote.
23 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Commissioner Barnett, for what
24 purpose? Question, he yields.
25 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The amendment before us
70
1 begins, undue influence in connection with an election.
2 Is that the current amendment? The question is presumably
3 this is, these are actions taken by the candidate, as
4 opposed to perhaps people on the candidate's behalf, but
5 it is not clear from the language that it would be solely
6 the actions of the candidate.
7 COMMISSIONER MILLS: The question is you are
8 suggesting that there are people who are capable of lying
9 on the candidate's behalf, as opposed to just the
10 candidate?
11 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yeah, the question --
12 yes, I mean, I think that there are many times some of
13 these activities that you are trying to get to might well
14 be committed by others, but I just think -- the question
15 is, what's your intent because the language is unclear to
16 me whether it is limited to the candidate or anyone acting
17 on the candidate's behalf, plus the candidate.
18 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I don't think it would be fair
19 to have anyone acting on the candidate's behalf, but it
20 should be the candidate or knowingly done on behalf of the
21 candidate, it would seem to me. So with the candidate's
22 knowledge.
23 So -- well I think we have -- if Commissioner Freidin
24 wants to prepare language to do that, I would accept that.
25 The intention is not that an unknowing candidate for
71
1 actions by others could be removed from office. Because,
2 I mean, it is true, that could happen.
3 But nonetheless, I would think a candidate who
4 knowingly allowed fraud, libel and slander to occur should
5 be in the same position as having done it personally
6 because it is not likely that they are going to personally
7 do a campaign mailer, they are going to approve it.
8 Are there other questions other than that?
9 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Any questions? Commissioner
10 Rundle.
11 COMMISSIONER RUNDLE: Commissioner Mills, I really
12 like what you both are trying to accomplish with this and
13 I am in fact working with a group down in Dade County to
14 try to design something similar through an ordinance, but
15 some of what I see in Dade County at least I'm concerned
16 wouldn't be covered by this. So I would almost be in
17 favor of broadening this language.
18 And I wonder if you wouldn't consider any reference
19 to racial or ethnic background of either the candidate or
20 a candidate's relative. There are a lot of I think really
21 disgusting types of activities that I have seen that
22 aren't going to |
